Jordan, for instance, is at the heart of a blazing region: wars, conflicts, influence projects, economic crises, and narrative wars that are no less important than field wars. Therefore, the agenda of institutions must not become hostage to trends, nor should politics be turned into a reaction to what platforms dictate. Not everything that generates noise is important, and not everything that is important is loud. There is a fundamental difference between a trend and a danger, between controversy and national interest, and between a transient issue and an issue that touches the state's security and future.
A strong state does not enter every battle; rather, it chooses its battles, determines its priorities, speaks when it must speak, and remains silent when silence is wiser. Transparency is strength, but responding to every noise is weakness. This is where the role of national awareness and the media comes in; the press is not a noise factory, but its function is to distinguish between the important and the sensational, between news and narrative, and between criticism and misinformation. On the other hand, not every piece of content that garners millions of views deserves to occupy national awareness. In the age of algorithms, national security extends beyond border protection; it also requires protecting awareness from misinformation, decision-making from distraction, and society from exhaustion. Therefore, the Jordanian stance must be clear: our national agenda is not written on social media platforms, nor is it dictated by waves of anger, nor are its priorities drawn by whoever has the loudest voice.
Jordan, as a state, is capable of defining its own interests, building its decisions in light of its national calculations, and dealing with the region from the position of a sovereign decision-making state. The state does not need more noise, but rather a clear political compass: What are we protecting? What do we want? And what do we refuse to have imposed upon us? Because the winner is the one who possesses attention and directs it in a realistic world governed by a theory in international relations called "Correction and Deterrence Diplomacy." Some want to choose what you think about, or make you overlook certain issues and direct your compass toward a specific destination!
Therefore, everyone should know that the very first act of sovereignty is for us to choose what deserves our thought. Jordan does not need to choose the world based on a "with us or against us" dichotomy; rather, it needs to widen the margin of maneuverability, which leads to increasing the options available to the state. This in itself is a weapon of deterrence, because a state with more options is less susceptible to coercion and pressure.
I believe—as a personal analysis that may be right or wrong—that this is the way His Majesty the King thinks and approaches matters, as is evident to me from his clear approach through his actions, stances, and speeches, especially the recent one before the United Nations General Assembly. In my estimation as an observant citizen, His Majesty seems to realize that Jordan's battle is not only in what is said about it, but in what it is intended to be preoccupied with. Therefore, we see him maintaining the compass of national decision-making, widening the margin of maneuverability, and refusing to have the agendas of others imposed on Jordan, even if they possess power and the keys, because a state's possession of its own options is one of the most important sources of its strength and deterrence.
May God protect Jordan—its people, land, and leadership—shielded by its armed forces and security agencies.
